Forum Index » GEAR » First impressions: Tundra ethical sleeping bag model Pure-0


Display Avatars Sort By:
Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
Other offset credits on 04/16/2013 14:15:25 MDT Print View

I love your idea, Craig, and I think it can be used in many other areas. For those who like to practice abstinence, I think I can work out a credit deal that will make us both happy. Give me a ring...

Colin Krusor
(ckrusor) - M

Locale: Northwest US
Back pedalling on the high road? on 04/16/2013 14:50:29 MDT Print View

"I do commend your efforts, Colin. I'm just...using you as a relevant example..."

"I just want to make sure you don't get lost in the details of ethical optimization..."

Aw. All this time it seemed like you were making a weak, convoluted argument, but really you were just using me as a tool to share with all of us an important lesson about the inherent limitations of ethical rhetoric and the fundamentally a priori nature of ethics. It was so well crafted! I was fooled.

Dustin, it's OK for us to disagree. I don't take it personally.

Edited by ckrusor on 04/16/2013 14:56:01 MDT.

Josh Brock
(needsAbath)

Locale: Outside
Captain Planet on 04/16/2013 14:59:10 MDT Print View

I dont know about you guys but when im on the trail I DONT pack out my trash. Why? Whats the point? The earth is already poluted you'd be a fool to think you packing out your trash would make a difference. And recycleing? F it! I also Poo and pee directly in streams I mean whats the point it will end up there eventually.

As Dustin has clearly shown there is no point to any kind of conservation or humane treatment just come to terms with life and do what you want.

Edward Zwibel
(YetiEddie) - MLife

Locale: Sunny San Diego
Ethical Goose on 04/16/2013 15:56:27 MDT Print View

You are all looking at this wrong. For every goose taken, I give a goose. No down is harmed, and it can happen in a sleeping bag. Give a goose... stop taking.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Back pedalling on the high road? on 04/16/2013 17:21:07 MDT Print View

"Aw. All this time it seemed like you were making a weak, convoluted argument, but really you were just using me as a tool to share with all of us an important lesson about the inherent limitations of ethical rhetoric and the fundamentally a priori nature of ethics. It was so well crafted! I was fooled."

Thanks for that "now I gotta clean my keyboard and computer screen" moment......

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F - M

Locale: Oregon
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on 04/17/2013 01:39:37 MDT Print View

"Natural RIGHTS (?) of birds....." and "Humane offset credits???" WTF??? Can we get a little more hippie-dippy PC around here? Give me a break! Where did everyone's stones go? This thread might as well be called " Neville Chamberlain's thoughts on down fill power".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo6IJxh130U

dig
kill
nuge

Edited by bigfoot2 on 04/17/2013 01:46:00 MDT.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on 04/17/2013 08:49:24 MDT Print View

Kilts and sneakers are bad enough, but you lost all credibility when you brought Ted Nugent into this.

Colin Krusor
(ckrusor) - M

Locale: Northwest US
Gasconade on 04/17/2013 09:42:02 MDT Print View

Matthew, still afraid of the big kids on the playground or something? Y'know, among adults, Pattonesque bluster like that (particularly in combination with that costume) just makes people wonder about you.

It's okay. Nobody on these forums is going to hurt you.

Seriously, you're calling somebody else a stereotype?

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Re: Gasconade on 04/17/2013 10:06:37 MDT Print View

LOL at this thread.

+1 to the OP for choosing a product he feels is more ethical.

I'll take "hippie-dippy PC" any day over Ted Nugent.

Sean Passanisi
(passanis)
The Responsible Company on 04/17/2013 10:27:57 MDT Print View

I recently became much more passionate about this issue after reading an interview with Vincent Stanley, who coauthored "The Responsible Company" with Yvon Chouinard. I just bought the book and love it so far. The ethical and environmental issues are certainly not black and white, but I'm looking forward to having increased transparency of true product costs to help drive my purchasing decisions.

Michael Cheifetz
(mike_hefetz) - MLife

Locale: Israel
Eider down @ Nunatak on 04/17/2013 10:47:21 MDT Print View

Just to offer some data point - Tom at nunatak used to have Eider down that was hand collected by park rangers in Canada (or some similar thing)

When I bought a 10F bag from him we did some math and it turned out it would cost 3500$ to do the bag in Eider....

So i dropped it :)

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Drum roll please! on 04/17/2013 10:47:38 MDT Print View

And this week's Jerry Springer Award goes to....!

(slowly fade in Wango Tango)

Edit: as far as stones go.... I don't have any problems with sustainable hunting practices. I've tried it a few times and learned that I'm not any good at it. I just get a kick out of some of the tools you will meet who use a scoped 30.06 to shoot a deer and then somehow get it into their heads that they are the next Jeremiah Johnson. Probably the same tools who cut off the back strap and leave the carcass rotting in the field. Not painting all hunters with the same brush because the ones I know do not behave this way.

I was getting some work done on my rifle and the guy behind the counter started this barrage of crap talking about how he was somehow a superior rifleman because he hunted vs those who shoot paper. I told him I'd be a bit more impressed if the deer could shoot back.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 04/17/2013 11:00:43 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F - M

Locale: Oregon
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on 04/17/2013 11:41:10 MDT Print View

smile

Lighten up guys (pun intended). My post was intended as being a bit "toungue-in-cheek", but, ok...let's get serious.
Do I think animals should be treated humanely? Absolutely! I would never want any animal to suffer needlessly.
That being said, do I think there are more important things in this world to worry about other than "natural rights" of animals? HELL YES!
People these days care more about the ethical harvesting of down for their sleeping bags than they do about the millions of children being SLAUGHTERED every year through abortions and late term abortions. That, people, is in my opinion a glaring moral defect of today's societal values!
Take, for example,the (mass murderer) abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia:

Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state's 24-week limit for abortions is the story.
That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It is about basic HUMAN rights. Not "animal rights"...HUMAN rights.

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure and then having it's spinal cord cut. This is not an isolated incident as some would lead you to believe, but an everyday occurrence and standard operating procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart. Feel free to Google it if you have the courage.

This is just one example. We could go country to country and compare this humane bird harvesting rights stuff to other human rights violations issues and abuses,not just abortion.

So do I really care about some birds? Of course I do, but it is trivial when compared to a real issue. Animals ARE NOT PEOPLE and do not have "natural rights". Sorry, but the birds be damned.

Matt
PS--
"Matthew, still afraid of the big kids on the playground or something? Y'know, among adults, Pattonesque bluster like that (particularly in combination with that costume) just makes people wonder about you.

It's okay. Nobody on these forums is going to hurt you.

Seriously, you're calling somebody else a stereotype?"

How did my wearing a kilt become relevant here? And BTW...I usually WAS the biggest kid on the playground until I hit about 18. LOL.

Edited by bigfoot2 on 04/17/2013 12:54:40 MDT.

Colin Krusor
(ckrusor) - M

Locale: Northwest US
Apologies on 04/17/2013 13:27:21 MDT Print View

Sorry, Matthew, for my pointed answer your tongue-in-cheek post. Roger Dodger's posts look just like yours, but his bombast and bravado are embarrassingly not tongue-in-cheek. I finally got used to understanding his posts as serious and I interpreted yours the same way.

To answer the serious part of your second post, I would note that there are lots of things in the world to that are (or seem) unfair, but I don't see how that prevents us from doing good in small ways when we see an opportunity (like considering harm to animals when we make decisions to purchase things). The case of the crooked abortion doctor that you cite is abominable, nobody would disagree with that, and it is dwarfed by the far larger number of people who are killed by other people under circumstances unrelated to abortion. But I don't understand your reasoning that, consequently, "birds be damned." I guess I just don't see how choosing an ethical sleeping bag is more difficult if you are already outraged about victimization of people. I can't see how they are related.

Also, as an aside, I've got nothing against kilts. I spoke a bit of gaelic at home when I was a kid (my dad is fluent), and started playing the pipes when I was seven. I'm totally comfortable in a kilt and sporran. I teased you about it because that and your (tongue-in-cheek) post made for a funny juxtaposition.

Dustin Short
(upalachango) - MLife
Consistency on 04/17/2013 13:36:53 MDT Print View

What's the point of bringing up ethical issues if you're only going to entertain your own point of view? I never said it's pointless to be conscientious (check your reading comprehension). I specifically said weigh the pros and cons and move on. Plus animal treatment is to some degree a moral issue and not an ethical issue. The reason it is moral is because lines are drawn, somewhat arbitrarily, on what we respect and what we don't. That opens up the conversation. Unless of course we're all deep ecologists, but those don't truly exist on this forum because you're still using electricity to get on the internet, both of which are more than a basic human need.

It's all greenwashing and it's all very profitable. People are willing to spend more money if they feel like their choice is "good" for the environment or animals. Truth is it's only "better" than the current process, but better is very different from good. What's good for the sleeping bag is not good for the gander, unless you're willing to drop the cash on an eider down garment. Then again I don't know if there are species other than eider that rely on the discarded down to line their own burrows and nests, but it's likely. Tundra is capitalizing on people's desire to be good by selling them a better product, but not a good product. They are marketing these geese in a palatable way even though the geese are still held captive and used for human purposes.

I still stand by the argument, that in relation to the waste byproduct that is down, splitting hairs over ethics and morals is pointless. If you feel so strongly, set up a down business that collects only wild feathers, or create a synthetic insulation from biopolymers. Or stop backpacking so you don't need insulation anymore. You say my argument is weak, but all of your choices are weak because in the end your desire and convenience trump your beliefs. To claim that beliefs are more important than actions is just self-righteous hypocrisy. I at least act consistent with my belief. You can look down on me and think I'm a nihilistic arse who doesn't give a damn about the world, but my actions don't bear any of that prejudice of yours.

Given the option of two identical products with equivalent specs except one is objectively more ethical and the cost premium is within my economic valuation heuristic...then yes I'll buy the more ethical choice. I will not however quibble over details on few and far between consumer choices like sleeping bags. I choose to instead focus on more pressing day to day matters, like washing my metallic spoon rather than discarding plastic cookware. Or researching the impacts of any of the millions of "green and ethical" choices we're offered to see just how much better they truly are. You'd be surprised how many are misguided at best, with many flat out misleading in an effort to make money. The green movement has an unfortunate infestation of charlatans (even good natured) riding the good intentions to pad their own pockets (ironically often non-profits).

My wording was maybe a bit harsh and I didn't specifically quote the OP, but then again I didn't realize BPL was a peer-reviewed academic or professional forum. I was under the impression this was a site for anyone with $5 and an interest in backpacking and the outdoors.

PS: Ted Nugent scares me.

Ike Jutkowitz
(Ike) - M

Locale: Central Michigan
re: on 04/17/2013 14:03:45 MDT Print View

I don't think I'd like squaring off against Colin in a debate. Sound logic and some truly awesome comebacks.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F - M

Locale: Oregon
First impressions: Tundra ethical sleeping bag model Pure-0" on 04/17/2013 14:47:35 MDT Print View

"What's the point of bringing up ethical issues if you're only going to entertain your own point of view?"----
Exactly! Same can be said of you. Different opinion..."oh, he wears a KILT! Don't listen to him! What he says won't matter. Quick...change the subject and try and turn it back on him....say he's a little kid that's still affraid of bullies!" LOL.

If people put this much effort into what REALLY matters in this world, it would be a much better place. Instead we worry about frivolous things while people suffer and die. The hubris of current societal values disgusts me.

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 04/17/2013 14:51:07 MDT.

Colin Krusor
(ckrusor) - M

Locale: Northwest US
Frivolous things on 04/17/2013 15:35:13 MDT Print View

Matthew, sorry for the kilt quip. See my last post. The schoolyard remark had nothing to do with the kilt. I promise that I've spent more time in a kilt than you have. The schoolyard remark was about the hypermasculine bravado in your post (the Clint Eastwood/Hunting shirt/Ted Nugent part). Your post was funny once I realized you were joking, but I didn't know that at first. There are others on BPL who post that kind of puffery and they want to be taken seriously. Your joke went over my head.

"If people put this much effort into what REALLY matters in this world, it would be a much better place. Instead we worry about frivolous things while people suffer and die. The hubris of current societal values disgusts me."

I totally agree with that first sentence, but I'm still not following your point about a relationship between human tragedies and ethical buying choices. I'm an epidemiologist, and I do research at a university in California. I spend 50-70 hours a week trying to find ways to protect people and animals from the spread of diseases caused by protozoan parasites. I get paid very little but I take my work home with me every night and usually work weekends. I care a lot about human suffering. And when I need a new sleeping bag someday, why shouldn't I consider harm to animals when I'm making my decision? How would that be in conflict with my concern for people? Should I think to myself "Given the weight of human suffering in this world, I have a duty to make this purchase blindly."?

Matthew, you seem to care about the suffering of people. I bet you also care about other things (your family, girls/girlfriend/wife/partner, backpacking, music, etc.). Do you think that you should stop caring about those other things because it's important to care about the suffering of people? No. They are compatible. Why should my concern for people require that I stop being concerned about animals?

Note that nobody in this thread suggested giving animals more value than people. It was suggested that alternative sources of down that appear to reduce harm to birds are worth considering when buying a sleeping bag. You suggested that it is apalling that people would be concerned about something like this "instead" of more important issues like human suffering. I don't understand the "instead" part (in the second sentence of your quote above).

Edited by ckrusor on 04/17/2013 15:52:54 MDT.

just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear) - M
Re: Frivolous things on 04/17/2013 15:46:15 MDT Print View

Colin wrote, "Do you think that you should stop caring about those other things because it's important to care about the suffering of people? No. They are compatible. Why should my concern for people require that I stop being concerned about animals?"


As someone who works in-home with people that have disabilities, and who cares a lot about people, animals, the Earth, and the larger Universe in general, just want to add + x1000 to the above.

The more you attune to compassion, the more compassionate you become on all levels and for all Beings.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F - M

Locale: Oregon
First impressions: Tundra ethical sleeping bag model Pure-0" on 04/17/2013 15:54:09 MDT Print View

Colin...no offense taken, my friend. I think we're on the same page, but....
si